No its not, it barely scratches the surface.
The FBI is still investigating this and all those involved after Vadim Mikerin rolled.
Russian election tampering campaign proven
- Thread starter basilio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- election russia us election
No its not, it barely scratches the surface.
The FBI is still investigating this and all those involved after Vadim Mikerin rolled.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Those were the main issues that the alt right claimed. That the donor to Hillary was an owner of the mine. NO, he donated to Hillary and sold his interest long before this transaction took place. That Hillary influenced the decision. NO, it was committee that consisted of 9 people from different interested organisations that made the decision and they have denied any outside influence and have stated that they would make the same decision today.
Things omitted were the fact that other bodies also gave approval and some of these were republican controlled (the state governor was a Republican). One major thing left out was Trumps claim that 20% of USA uranium was exported to Russia as part of this deal. The truth is that this was just a change of mine ownership and NO, repeat NO, uranium was exported to Russia from it. That requires a separate export license.
Like almost all claims against Hillary, there is no substance to them. They were only made up to muddy the waters regarding Trumps Russia collusion. I believe this particular issue was started by a Breitbart article, that bastion of impartiality. This is the real fake news and that is why there are no charges against Hillary.
Thats old news, you need to read keep abreast of the hottest conspiracies.
The payments into the Clinton foundation after Vadim Mikerin made allegations are whats being looked at, along with everything up till Trump.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...sian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Of course it's old news. All the initial allegations which Breitbart, Trump, Fox et al raised concerning the uranium deal were completely debunked, just like the interviewer did in the YouTube I posted. So what do you do when you have no credibility what so ever? If you are a Republican you just move on and make up more lies. And what credibility do the so called Vadim Mikerin allegations have?
NONE. Completely debunked by none other than the Justice Department:
But we now know that in a December 15, 2017, briefing to House oversight committee staff, Justice Department officials apparently knocked down this claim. The officials said that “at no point did [the individual] provide any allegation of corruption, illegality, or impropriety on Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, President Clinton, the Uranium One deal, or CFIUS,” Cummings and Schiff wrote. “They also confirmed that there were ‘no allegations of impropriety or illegality’ regarding Secretary Clinton in any of the documents they reviewed.”
The officials also revealed in the briefing that “career attorneys initially planned to build their case against Mikerin based on evidence provided by this individual. However, they began to have ‘serious credibility concerns’ because of ‘inconsistencies’ between the individual’s statements and documents they obtained as part of the investigation,” the letter says.
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...-debunked-the-gops-phony-uranium-one-scandal/
Shes not safe yet. Muller will go through the lot of them.
James Comey and the FBI, along with Hillary will eventually be linked for corruption.
There is no evidence on Trump and the beat up and dossier was all from the same group. I'm sure he has dirt on him, but I doubt it will do much damage.
Hillary is up to her neck on it and she has been consistently acting above the law. She has also slimed her way out of each encounter, but only just.
Lucky for her that her FBI lackeys deleted her computer for her.
She had Comey onside so she didn't face charges.
She had an inner circle in the FBI.
Where else has she stuck her dirty little fingers.
I hope the FBI gets the scrutiny it deserves.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
That's a hard ask. The first hurdle is going to be getting through the feminist wall of women's defence and because feminism is basically the press these days there would be a world of whoop-arse for Muller.
Hillary is a keystone of woman power and equity. If she is shown to be dishonest the whole anti men campaign built on Bill's guilt would cop a hiding.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Wouldn't the first hurdle be to actually come up with some evidence of wrongdoing that is plausible, other than the concoctions manufactured by Breitbart, the alt-right and Fox News. As far as I know the only charge of merit was in relation to the missing e-mails and for that she was held as acting irresponsibly but did not commit any crime.
The uranium affair is just so laughable that anyone who clings to it is surely lacking.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,742
- Reactions
- 12,919
"alt right"
LMAO what a credibility destroyer.
The real alt right is of course as thoroughly toxic as the pathologically virtue signalling cultural Marxists and sjws, but the center right, the right, consrvatives etc are NOT alt right.
LMAO what a credibility destroyer.
The real alt right is of course as thoroughly toxic as the pathologically virtue signalling cultural Marxists and sjws, but the center right, the right, consrvatives etc are NOT alt right.
Its still under investigation.Obamas administration is as well.
explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
US Meddling In Foreign Elections: A CIA Tradition Since 1948
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/05/2018 - 02:10
6
SHARES
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint
Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
In a shocking display of relative independence from the post-Operation Mockingbird control of the media by the Central Intelligence Agency, a recent article in The New York Times broke with current conventional pack journalism and covered the long history of CIA meddling in foreign elections.
A February 17, 2018, article, titled, "Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too," authored by Scott Shane – who covered the perestroika and glasnost for The Baltimore Sun in Moscow from 1988 to 1991 during the final few years of the Soviet Union – reported the US has interfered in foreign elections for decades. However, a couple of old US intelligence hands were quoted in the article as saying the US meddling was for altruistic purposes. The CIA veterans charged that Russia interferes in foreign elections for purely malevolent purposes. The belief that American interference in global elections was to promote liberal democracy could not be further from the truth.
The CIA never meddled in foreign elections for purposes of extending democratic traditions to other nations. The chief purpose was to disenfranchise leftist and progressive voters and political parties, ensure the veneer of “democracy” in totalitarian countries, and protect the interests of the US military bases and US multinational corporations.
In double-talk that is reminiscent of the Cold War years, the CIA considers its election interference to fall under the category of "influence operations," while the same agency accuses Russia of "election meddling." In truth, there is no difference between the two categories. Election interference represents intelligence service “tradecraft” and it has been practiced by many intelligence agencies, including those of Israel, France, Britain, China, India, and others.
On the rare occasions when the CIA's efforts to rig an election failed – as they did in Guatemala in 1950 and Chile in 1970 – the agency simply organized bloody military coups to replace with military juntas the democratically-elected presidents who defeated CIA-supported candidates at the polls.
In 1954, the CIA’s Operation PBSUCCESS overthrew the Guatemalan government of President Jacobo Arbenz, who was elected in 1950 on a platform of agrarian reform that would improve the lives of Guatemala’s peasants, many of whom suffered under the indentured servitude of the US-owned United Fruit Company. United Fruit maintained industrial-level plantations across the country. Working with the CIA, United Fruit did its best to ensure defeat for Arbenz in the 1950 election. When that tactic failed, United Fruit, the CIA, and US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles devised a plan to overthrow Arbenz in a military coup. Guatemala became a stereotypical American-influenced “banana republic.”
The Chilean junta that replaced Socialist President Salvador Allende, who was elected in 1970 despite massive CIA interference, transformed Chile into a testbed for the vulture capitalism devised by the “Chicago Boys” – a group of Chilean economists who studied under the neo-conservative economist Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago. Friedman called the massive free market laissez-faire policies instituted by the regime of General Augusto Pinochet the “Miracle of Chile.” The economic policies, which a US Senate Intelligence Committee investigation concluded were crafted with the help of the CIA, saw the elimination of trade tariffs, the mass sell-off of state-owned enterprises, cutting of taxes, privatization of the state-run pension system, and de-regulation of industry.
In 1990, CIA election meddling in Nicaragua ensured a win for the opposition over the ruling Sandinista-led government. This type of meddling was repeated in the 2000 Serbian election, which saw President Slobodan Milosevic ejected from power. The ouster of Milosevic saw the first demonstrated cooperation in election meddling between the CIA and international hedfe fund tycoon George Soros’s Open Society Institute cadres. In 2009, the CIA attempted to defeat Afghan President Hamid Karzai for re-election. Although Karzai was re-elected, he bitterly complained about the CIA's interference in the election.
MS-NBC constantly features as a contributing expert on Russia the former US ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul. However, McFaul never mentions how he funneled CIA cash – some $6.8 million in total – via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its two branches, the International Republican Institute of the Republican Party and the National Democratic Institute of the Democratic Party, to Russian opposition leaders like Aleksei Navalny. Nor does the US media mention that the CIA and State Department funneled some $5 billion into Ukraine in order to bring about a pro-US government in that country.
McFaul hosted Russian opposition party meetings at the US embassy and ignored warnings that Navalny's coalition included several neo-Nazi nationalists, who oppose immigrants hailing from south of the Russian border. Although he has been called by some Western journalists the "Russian Erin Brokovich" (an American environmental activist), Navalny is more like the "Russian David Duke." Duke is the former leader of the American racist group, the Ku Klux Klan.
Declassified CIA files are replete with examples of agency interference in foreign elections, including state elections in India and West Germany and provincial elections in Australia, Canada, and Japan...
In the 1950s, the CIA provided massive support to the West German Christian Democrats, which were led by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. The CIA also did its best to suppress supprt for the West German Social Democrats and the far-right nationalist German Party in Berlin, Hesse, and Bavaria.
In 1967, Indian Foreign Minister M. C. Chagla charged that the CIA "meddled" in India's election, mainly through financial donations to parties in opposition to the ruling Indian Congress party. The CIA particularly targeted Communist parties in West Bengal and Kerala states.
Former Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker of the Conservative Party charged in 1967 that CIA funds were used to bolster the Liberal Party, which contributed to Diefenbaker's electoral losses in two general elections held between May 1962 and June 1963. Diefenbaker's successor, Prime Minister Lester Pearson of the Liberal Party, discovered that the CIA funneled cash to the pro-Liberal Canadian Union of Students in 1965 and 1966.
The CIA did everything possible to defeat for re-election the New Zealand Labor Party government of Prime Minister David Lange. The CIA provided propaganda support to the opposition National Party, which was opposed to Lange’s policy of denying entry to New Zealand waters of US nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered warships. The CIA ensured that pro-American media in New Zealand harped on about New Zealand record-high 6 percent unemployment, the nation’s foreign debt being half of its gross domestic product, and $1 billion budget deficit. The CIA also attempted to suppress traditional Maori support for Labor in the August 15, 1987 election, a cynical use of race-based politics to alter an election outcome.
Between 1965 and 1967, the CIA station in Brazil, working in conjunction with the AFL/CIO union in the United States and its international arm, the American Institute of Free Labor Development (AIFLD), were discovered to be interfering in union elections in Brazil. The Sao Paulo office of the AIFLD, which was nothing more than a CIA front, made cash payments to Brazilian officials to corrupt union elections in the Brazilian petroleum sector. An itemized list of CIA bribes to Brazilian officials was discovered by a Sao Paulo union official: “Bonus to Jose Abud for collaboration – $156.25; Special payment to Dt. Jorge M. Filho of Labor Ministry – $875.00; Trip for Mr. Glaimbore Guimasaes, our informer at Fegundes St. – $56.25; Photocopies of books and documents of Petroleum Federation – $100.00; Assistance to Guedes and Eufrasio to defeat Luis Furtado of the Suzano Union – $140.64.”
Prior to the September 4, 1964 Chilean presidential election, the leftist Popular Action Front opposition discovered that US chargé d’affaires Joseph Jova was assisting the Christian Democratic Party candidate. Christian Democrat Eduardo Frei Montalva, with the CIA’s help, defeated Allende.
A CIA memo dated October 3, 1955, describes CIA support for the pro-Western. Masjumi Party in the Indonesian election, the nation’s first since independence. CIA director Allen Dulles appeared to be hopeful about the chances of a Masjumi victory due to Indonesia’s “large percentage of illiterates.” In the 1984 El Salvador presidential election, the CIA supported Christian Democrat Jose Napoleon Duarte over the more extreme-right winger, Roberto d’Aubisson. Republican US Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina charged that the CIA “meddled” in the election on behalf of Duarte. It was even discovered that the “invisible ink” used on the fingers of those who had voted was supplied from the CIA.
If the United States truly wants to halt foreign interference in elections, it must be the first to advocate and adhere to such a policy. Just as with the nuclear test-ban treaty, the convention to abolish biological and chemical weapons, and the treaty to prohibit weapons in outer space, the United States should call for an international treaty to ban election interference in all of its forms – the use of cyber-attacks, propaganda, social media manipulation, and funding of foreign political parties. Without such a commitment, US protestations about election meddling will continue to be a case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-04/us-meddling-foreign-elections-cia-tradition-1948
Clear evidence and confirmation in a book I've studied, J Edgar Hoover, Norton 1991
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/05/2018 - 02:10
6
SHARES
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint
Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
In a shocking display of relative independence from the post-Operation Mockingbird control of the media by the Central Intelligence Agency, a recent article in The New York Times broke with current conventional pack journalism and covered the long history of CIA meddling in foreign elections.
A February 17, 2018, article, titled, "Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too," authored by Scott Shane – who covered the perestroika and glasnost for The Baltimore Sun in Moscow from 1988 to 1991 during the final few years of the Soviet Union – reported the US has interfered in foreign elections for decades. However, a couple of old US intelligence hands were quoted in the article as saying the US meddling was for altruistic purposes. The CIA veterans charged that Russia interferes in foreign elections for purely malevolent purposes. The belief that American interference in global elections was to promote liberal democracy could not be further from the truth.
The CIA never meddled in foreign elections for purposes of extending democratic traditions to other nations. The chief purpose was to disenfranchise leftist and progressive voters and political parties, ensure the veneer of “democracy” in totalitarian countries, and protect the interests of the US military bases and US multinational corporations.
In double-talk that is reminiscent of the Cold War years, the CIA considers its election interference to fall under the category of "influence operations," while the same agency accuses Russia of "election meddling." In truth, there is no difference between the two categories. Election interference represents intelligence service “tradecraft” and it has been practiced by many intelligence agencies, including those of Israel, France, Britain, China, India, and others.
On the rare occasions when the CIA's efforts to rig an election failed – as they did in Guatemala in 1950 and Chile in 1970 – the agency simply organized bloody military coups to replace with military juntas the democratically-elected presidents who defeated CIA-supported candidates at the polls.
In 1954, the CIA’s Operation PBSUCCESS overthrew the Guatemalan government of President Jacobo Arbenz, who was elected in 1950 on a platform of agrarian reform that would improve the lives of Guatemala’s peasants, many of whom suffered under the indentured servitude of the US-owned United Fruit Company. United Fruit maintained industrial-level plantations across the country. Working with the CIA, United Fruit did its best to ensure defeat for Arbenz in the 1950 election. When that tactic failed, United Fruit, the CIA, and US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles devised a plan to overthrow Arbenz in a military coup. Guatemala became a stereotypical American-influenced “banana republic.”
The Chilean junta that replaced Socialist President Salvador Allende, who was elected in 1970 despite massive CIA interference, transformed Chile into a testbed for the vulture capitalism devised by the “Chicago Boys” – a group of Chilean economists who studied under the neo-conservative economist Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago. Friedman called the massive free market laissez-faire policies instituted by the regime of General Augusto Pinochet the “Miracle of Chile.” The economic policies, which a US Senate Intelligence Committee investigation concluded were crafted with the help of the CIA, saw the elimination of trade tariffs, the mass sell-off of state-owned enterprises, cutting of taxes, privatization of the state-run pension system, and de-regulation of industry.
In 1990, CIA election meddling in Nicaragua ensured a win for the opposition over the ruling Sandinista-led government. This type of meddling was repeated in the 2000 Serbian election, which saw President Slobodan Milosevic ejected from power. The ouster of Milosevic saw the first demonstrated cooperation in election meddling between the CIA and international hedfe fund tycoon George Soros’s Open Society Institute cadres. In 2009, the CIA attempted to defeat Afghan President Hamid Karzai for re-election. Although Karzai was re-elected, he bitterly complained about the CIA's interference in the election.
MS-NBC constantly features as a contributing expert on Russia the former US ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul. However, McFaul never mentions how he funneled CIA cash – some $6.8 million in total – via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its two branches, the International Republican Institute of the Republican Party and the National Democratic Institute of the Democratic Party, to Russian opposition leaders like Aleksei Navalny. Nor does the US media mention that the CIA and State Department funneled some $5 billion into Ukraine in order to bring about a pro-US government in that country.
McFaul hosted Russian opposition party meetings at the US embassy and ignored warnings that Navalny's coalition included several neo-Nazi nationalists, who oppose immigrants hailing from south of the Russian border. Although he has been called by some Western journalists the "Russian Erin Brokovich" (an American environmental activist), Navalny is more like the "Russian David Duke." Duke is the former leader of the American racist group, the Ku Klux Klan.
Declassified CIA files are replete with examples of agency interference in foreign elections, including state elections in India and West Germany and provincial elections in Australia, Canada, and Japan...
In the 1950s, the CIA provided massive support to the West German Christian Democrats, which were led by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. The CIA also did its best to suppress supprt for the West German Social Democrats and the far-right nationalist German Party in Berlin, Hesse, and Bavaria.
In 1967, Indian Foreign Minister M. C. Chagla charged that the CIA "meddled" in India's election, mainly through financial donations to parties in opposition to the ruling Indian Congress party. The CIA particularly targeted Communist parties in West Bengal and Kerala states.
Former Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker of the Conservative Party charged in 1967 that CIA funds were used to bolster the Liberal Party, which contributed to Diefenbaker's electoral losses in two general elections held between May 1962 and June 1963. Diefenbaker's successor, Prime Minister Lester Pearson of the Liberal Party, discovered that the CIA funneled cash to the pro-Liberal Canadian Union of Students in 1965 and 1966.
The CIA did everything possible to defeat for re-election the New Zealand Labor Party government of Prime Minister David Lange. The CIA provided propaganda support to the opposition National Party, which was opposed to Lange’s policy of denying entry to New Zealand waters of US nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered warships. The CIA ensured that pro-American media in New Zealand harped on about New Zealand record-high 6 percent unemployment, the nation’s foreign debt being half of its gross domestic product, and $1 billion budget deficit. The CIA also attempted to suppress traditional Maori support for Labor in the August 15, 1987 election, a cynical use of race-based politics to alter an election outcome.
Between 1965 and 1967, the CIA station in Brazil, working in conjunction with the AFL/CIO union in the United States and its international arm, the American Institute of Free Labor Development (AIFLD), were discovered to be interfering in union elections in Brazil. The Sao Paulo office of the AIFLD, which was nothing more than a CIA front, made cash payments to Brazilian officials to corrupt union elections in the Brazilian petroleum sector. An itemized list of CIA bribes to Brazilian officials was discovered by a Sao Paulo union official: “Bonus to Jose Abud for collaboration – $156.25; Special payment to Dt. Jorge M. Filho of Labor Ministry – $875.00; Trip for Mr. Glaimbore Guimasaes, our informer at Fegundes St. – $56.25; Photocopies of books and documents of Petroleum Federation – $100.00; Assistance to Guedes and Eufrasio to defeat Luis Furtado of the Suzano Union – $140.64.”
Prior to the September 4, 1964 Chilean presidential election, the leftist Popular Action Front opposition discovered that US chargé d’affaires Joseph Jova was assisting the Christian Democratic Party candidate. Christian Democrat Eduardo Frei Montalva, with the CIA’s help, defeated Allende.
A CIA memo dated October 3, 1955, describes CIA support for the pro-Western. Masjumi Party in the Indonesian election, the nation’s first since independence. CIA director Allen Dulles appeared to be hopeful about the chances of a Masjumi victory due to Indonesia’s “large percentage of illiterates.” In the 1984 El Salvador presidential election, the CIA supported Christian Democrat Jose Napoleon Duarte over the more extreme-right winger, Roberto d’Aubisson. Republican US Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina charged that the CIA “meddled” in the election on behalf of Duarte. It was even discovered that the “invisible ink” used on the fingers of those who had voted was supplied from the CIA.
If the United States truly wants to halt foreign interference in elections, it must be the first to advocate and adhere to such a policy. Just as with the nuclear test-ban treaty, the convention to abolish biological and chemical weapons, and the treaty to prohibit weapons in outer space, the United States should call for an international treaty to ban election interference in all of its forms – the use of cyber-attacks, propaganda, social media manipulation, and funding of foreign political parties. Without such a commitment, US protestations about election meddling will continue to be a case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-04/us-meddling-foreign-elections-cia-tradition-1948
Clear evidence and confirmation in a book I've studied, J Edgar Hoover, Norton 1991
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,424
- Reactions
- 7,296
Well surprise, surprise, surprise...
US Meddling In Foreign Elections: A CIA Tradition Since 1948
....If the United States truly wants to halt foreign interference in elections, it must be the first to advocate and adhere to such a policy. Just as with the nuclear test-ban treaty, the convention to abolish biological and chemical weapons, and the treaty to prohibit weapons in outer space, the United States should call for an international treaty to ban election interference in all of its forms – the use of cyber-attacks, propaganda, social media manipulation, and funding of foreign political parties. Without such a commitment, US protestations about election meddling will continue to be a case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
US Meddling In Foreign Elections: A CIA Tradition Since 1948
....If the United States truly wants to halt foreign interference in elections, it must be the first to advocate and adhere to such a policy. Just as with the nuclear test-ban treaty, the convention to abolish biological and chemical weapons, and the treaty to prohibit weapons in outer space, the United States should call for an international treaty to ban election interference in all of its forms – the use of cyber-attacks, propaganda, social media manipulation, and funding of foreign political parties. Without such a commitment, US protestations about election meddling will continue to be a case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
Israel don't control US politics, corporations do.
I mean, Israel can pull its weight if the end result is simply to beat up on Palestinians and other Arabs, getting them billions per year in aids to buy arms and other security intelligence stuff... those are fine and welcomed. But the moment Israel's interests does not coincide with US corporate interest, Bibi and the rest can shut it.
Case in point: Iran and that awful, terrible, horrible nuclear peace deal.
Israel wanted the US to keep up the sanctions, then get ready to take out the Mullahs for 'em. But Iran got lotsa oil decades of sanctions managed to keep it mostly underground. Then there's decades of new tech and gadgets the Iranians, both state level on down to the lowly Persian, would buy.
In that case, peace is a lot more profitable than another quagmire that would drag in the Russians and the Chinese. So Obama got the permission to sign it.
Trump and his son-in-law is a god send. Them two know a bad deal when they see one.
"Israel don't control US politics, corporations do."
Well, the game for control on this planet seems to be an eternal battle among the wanna be gods and rulers. No argument that we (US) are a corporatocracy, as well other nasty things. But the absolute statement, "Israel don't control US politics", just flies in the face of a huge huge elephant in the room, of both Houses. If you don't sign the pledge of allegiance to Israel, as a new member of congress/senate, you are outed one way or another. I call that a lot of political control.
Bibi describes how he can easily manipulate the world, including America
BIBI: "The world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending. Especially today, with America, I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They [America] won’t get their way ... They won’t get in our way. They won’t get in our way.”
~Bibi Netanyahu in 2001
Well, the game for control on this planet seems to be an eternal battle among the wanna be gods and rulers. No argument that we (US) are a corporatocracy, as well other nasty things. But the absolute statement, "Israel don't control US politics", just flies in the face of a huge huge elephant in the room, of both Houses. If you don't sign the pledge of allegiance to Israel, as a new member of congress/senate, you are outed one way or another. I call that a lot of political control.
Bibi describes how he can easily manipulate the world, including America
BIBI: "The world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending. Especially today, with America, I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They [America] won’t get their way ... They won’t get in our way. They won’t get in our way.”
~Bibi Netanyahu in 2001
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
When the Jews control the media narrative, control the financial institutions and the war machines, Israel is merely a dude ranch the membership can touch and feel.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,424
- Reactions
- 7,296
Popcorn time folks. Just get too fat.
Former Trump aide says president 'may have done something illegal'
Sam Nunberg says he would rip up a subpoena in Trump-Russia inquiry, but that Trump may have broken the law during the election
Ben Jacobs
@Bencjacobs
Tue 6 Mar 2018 08.18 AEDT
Shares
770
Nunberg said that had Trump not won the Republican primary, ‘he was probably going to endorse Hillary Clinton’. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
In a pair of extraordinary interviews on Monday, former Donald Trump aide Sam Nunberg said he would defy a grand jury subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller but also said the president “may have done something” illegal.
Speaking first to the Washington Post and then on MSNBC, Nunberg vowed to defy Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 US election and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow.
Mueller has indicted 13 Russians and four former Trump aides, three of whom have entered plea deals involving co-operation.
Nunberg, however, said he would tear up his subpoena live on Bloomberg TV.
He also told MSNBC host Katy Tur, the author of a bestselling book on the Trump campaign, that he thought the candidate “may have done something” illegal during the election.
He added: “I don’t know that for sure.”
Nunberg, a protégé of veteran political operative Roger Stone, was Trump’s political adviser prior to the start of his White House run.
He was fired in August 2015, over racially charged Facebook posts, after he and Stone lost a internal power struggle with then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.
Nunberg was sued by Trump on the eve of the 2016 Republican convention, for allegedly leaking information about Lewandowski’s relationship with close Trump aide and future White House communications director Hope Hicks. However, Nunberg has remained close to many in Trump’s orbit.
Speaking to the Post, Nunberg dared Mueller to act if he refused to appear before a grand jury on Friday.
“Let him arrest me,” he said.
Speaking to MSNBC, Nunberg said: “I think it would be funny if they arrested me.”
Nunberg told Tur he would not co-operate with Mueller, saying: “It’s a witch hunt and I’m not going to cooperate.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/05/trump-sam-nunberg-interview-mueller-illegal-claims
Former Trump aide says president 'may have done something illegal'
Sam Nunberg says he would rip up a subpoena in Trump-Russia inquiry, but that Trump may have broken the law during the election
Ben Jacobs
@Bencjacobs
Tue 6 Mar 2018 08.18 AEDT
Shares
770
Nunberg said that had Trump not won the Republican primary, ‘he was probably going to endorse Hillary Clinton’. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
In a pair of extraordinary interviews on Monday, former Donald Trump aide Sam Nunberg said he would defy a grand jury subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller but also said the president “may have done something” illegal.
Speaking first to the Washington Post and then on MSNBC, Nunberg vowed to defy Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 US election and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow.
Mueller has indicted 13 Russians and four former Trump aides, three of whom have entered plea deals involving co-operation.
Nunberg, however, said he would tear up his subpoena live on Bloomberg TV.
He also told MSNBC host Katy Tur, the author of a bestselling book on the Trump campaign, that he thought the candidate “may have done something” illegal during the election.
He added: “I don’t know that for sure.”
Nunberg, a protégé of veteran political operative Roger Stone, was Trump’s political adviser prior to the start of his White House run.
He was fired in August 2015, over racially charged Facebook posts, after he and Stone lost a internal power struggle with then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.
Nunberg was sued by Trump on the eve of the 2016 Republican convention, for allegedly leaking information about Lewandowski’s relationship with close Trump aide and future White House communications director Hope Hicks. However, Nunberg has remained close to many in Trump’s orbit.
Speaking to the Post, Nunberg dared Mueller to act if he refused to appear before a grand jury on Friday.
“Let him arrest me,” he said.
Speaking to MSNBC, Nunberg said: “I think it would be funny if they arrested me.”
Nunberg told Tur he would not co-operate with Mueller, saying: “It’s a witch hunt and I’m not going to cooperate.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/05/trump-sam-nunberg-interview-mueller-illegal-claims
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
Bibi also believe his ancestor was living in Phillistine/Israel during biblical time. He actually has some rock with his family name on it to prove the point. He probably also see himself as the modern King David.
No doubt that Israel and its US lobby hold almost unmatched influence in US politics, but those influence stop the moment it goes against US corporate, and dare we say, US national interest.
The recent Iranian deal is one case, another was the battle for the Sinai penisular; another before that was the battle for the Suez canal.
Back, I don't know, in the 50s, the French and the Israeli (can't remember if the Poms were also involved)... but they take on the tyrant of Cairo because he went ahead and nationalise the canal.
You can't retake your country's canal and all its cash flows habib. That's very bad. So the two greatest democracies in the world fought for control... that is until Eisenhower pick up the phone and tell them to go home and leave such an important artery to Uncle Sam... he meant, to the Egyptian people
In the late 60s the Israeli had drawn up maps and town planning for a massive city on the Sinai peninsular. Another Egyptian general told them no, they can have Gaza and the West Bank and maybe Jordan but not that where God spoke to Moses.
The Israelis thought Uncle Sam would come on in to help them but, from memory here, the Egyptian and other Arab countries join forces "to drive the Israeli into the seas" - or out of Sinai.
Uncle Sam didn't step in because the purpose of Israel is to serve as a foreign, unsinkable military base for future mission liberation something something. Israel can be a Jewish state in the middle of "the jungle" among the Arabs. That way, they can be use as excuses to fight the Arabs if it comes to that... It's an easier sell to the American public so say that you go into the M.E. to help free the Jews from the Muslims than to just take their oil.
Now, for Israel to pizz off every Arab state does not serve that aim. So Uncle Sam tell them where to go.
Chomsky recount another example with Bush Snr.
Know how the US pay lip service to being a peace broker and all that. Well, when Bush the Elder's Secretary of State Jim Baker went to Israel to talk peace, the Israeli got ahead of themselves a bit and announced more settlement development before Baker landed.
That upset and made homeless a lot of Palestinians, but most important of all it make your Jimmy look bad. You got to ask permission first, then do your crap.
So they cancel aids to Israel and probably give them a talking to that the Israeli decided to cancel those plans and bend over.
Trump and his son-in-law (and senior advisor and peace envoy, ha ha)... most likely does not appreciate the finer point of that special US-Israeli relationship. They actually thought that Israel controls the US too, not the other way around. Hence the Tweets about ending that Iranian nuclear deal.
some folks seem to have made plans to expand the ranch...
Global Research Editor’s Note
The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.
“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.
The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.
Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article, The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:
“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.
“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)
Viewed in this context, the war on Syria is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey and NATO is directly supportive of the Al Qaeda terrorist mercenaries inside Syria.
The Zionist Project also requires the destabilization of Egypt, the creation of factional divisions within Egypt as instrumented by the “Arab Spring” leading to the formation of a sectarian based State dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 3, 2013
Could this possibly be one of the reasons we (the US) embarked on an invasion and bombing campaign in these regions since 2001? I mean... besides noble ideals i.e. spreading democracy, growing some nice poppy fields in Aphganistan, routing out the scary boogieman, whatever. I don't know... just asking questions
Global Research Editor’s Note
The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.
“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.
The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.
Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article, The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:
“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.
“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)
Viewed in this context, the war on Syria is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey and NATO is directly supportive of the Al Qaeda terrorist mercenaries inside Syria.
The Zionist Project also requires the destabilization of Egypt, the creation of factional divisions within Egypt as instrumented by the “Arab Spring” leading to the formation of a sectarian based State dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 3, 2013
Could this possibly be one of the reasons we (the US) embarked on an invasion and bombing campaign in these regions since 2001? I mean... besides noble ideals i.e. spreading democracy, growing some nice poppy fields in Aphganistan, routing out the scary boogieman, whatever. I don't know... just asking questions
explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
Geeezzz newanimal, that's just seems to fit.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
some folks seem to have made plans to expand the ranch...
Global Research Editor’s Note
The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.
“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.
The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.
Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article, The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:
“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.
“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)
Viewed in this context, the war on Syria is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey and NATO is directly supportive of the Al Qaeda terrorist mercenaries inside Syria.
The Zionist Project also requires the destabilization of Egypt, the creation of factional divisions within Egypt as instrumented by the “Arab Spring” leading to the formation of a sectarian based State dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 3, 2013
Could this possibly be one of the reasons we (the US) embarked on an invasion and bombing campaign in these regions since 2001? I mean... besides noble ideals i.e. spreading democracy, growing some nice poppy fields in Aphganistan, routing out the scary boogieman, whatever. I don't know... just asking questions
How Legitimate is The Centre for Global Research?
It is by no means an objectively reliable media source. The articles, videos, and other media it puts forth are highly skewed and often factually inaccurate.
Some people have been quoting it as a legitimate source, but it has very strong ties to an organization known for churning out blatant propaganda.
The Centre for Research on Globalization, also known as the Centre for Global Research and Mondialisation.ca is a fascist/Kremlin-funded propaganda outlet that defames and slanders their targeted groups such as Jews, Ukrainians, the United States, and other western countries.
more....
https://www.quora.com/Journalistic-Ethics-and-Norms-How-legitimate-is-The-Centre-for-Global-Research
